It isn’t regular RG-65 class legal!
It’s probably too small/light to sail well!
It may not “set well” with the general RG class population!
There aren’t too many/any around!
It sails completely different!
The RG-65M … as a potential ( and “fun”) class - to start ?
With enough snow on the ground to forsee at least 4-5 months of coming winter - I was thinking yesterday about a possible winter project. Basically using the rig/sails from the RG-65 Class and setting them on top of a “MULTIHULL” platform (thus the “M” in the logo).
CONSIDER:
Tweaking the rules slightly -
ALLOW multiple hulls - catamaran, proa, trimaran or ???
Keep the mast height - but delete reference to sail area limitations
NO limit on number of rudders or boards
ALLOW moveable ballast if so desired
Not sure how many will be interested, and not sure if a “no lead” option will carry through a tack - but I am going to give it a try and build a set of hulls - not sure if cat or tri right now, but will provide a test bed for a construction process I had dubbed as an “Economaran”. Originally started as an F-48 this 25 1/2 inch multihull might be more conducive to building - especially if the rig is able to be swapped between monohull (RG-65) and multihull (RG65-M).
If interested - please post a reply, or a response.
If not interested, your reasons “why” would be appreciated.
I am still seeking a venue of multihull R/C sailing that would stir interest.
I feel you might be ploughing a lonesome furrow with the generally little interest in multi-hulls. From what I’ve read, the tri with a centre RG65 might work better, and a lot of people would be interested enough to see how it sails, but from their to building one, could be a long way.
A Jif2 might be a more productive way of occupying the winter months;-)
I am going to try a PALACE 80 scaled down. A fellow ( KubaSail ) posted a set of lines on another forum for an 80 cm boat that is of VOR style with hopes of a one-design. I suggested he revise for an RG-65 where there is activity, and did the same - so I will be trying that plan as well.
Unfortunately - when it comes to multihulls - is where my heart is located. Would rather talk, build, sail them than any lead “slug” - but realize to be able to play, you have to also pick less “speedy” classes.
Drawings are just being developed and I’ll have to see what size the hulls will be (width) to determine if the radio gear goes inside - or if I need to make a “pod” between the hulls. I do have the plans for a trimaran (GHOST TRAIN) which is 1.2 meter - but have photos of a California boat built to 28 inches instead of 25 -1/2 so might still be a tri. I’ll dig them out and post here.
Here are the photos of a scaled down Mini40/F-48 that was built in California. Owner moved to Hawaii and I’ve lost track of him and his boat. Never saw it finished or found out how well it sailed. It appears to be approximately 24 inches total beam, and about 28 inches long as I recall.
I am thinking of a RG65 tri myself when my current RG65 is finished…however, there has been one of these boats off in Germany and it does sail pretty well, sailing on one hull included.
The builder made very little effort building it, using only very simple shapes and techniques…unfortunately, he never published any plans or drawings…how are doing it, sailman?
Hello World !
There never have plan !
Only, Ghost Train, water-Resist or another plan to print and adjust with desired dimensions. Here a bond of plans to be reduced… http://www.rc-network.de/forum/showthread.php?t=61040
how about making it an easy trimaran to build, and using the existing rg56 hull/kit for the main hull and then create outriggers that can be easily attached removed, so you rg65 can be sailed as a mono/tri, and all you’d need todo would be to remove the lead… and add the riggers…
I realize that it may not be the best performer, but it would be one way to make the class “dual purpose” so to speak…It would cut down on electronics and cost…
I’m not a Cat/tri guy, but I figured Id toss my my 2 cents, for whats it worth…
Hello Mark -
idea was tried and done in the UK with 1 Meter monohulls, and also in Australia using Marblehead class monohulls.
As long as they stay together it’s an idea that works. Once you leave the local pond and sail against “Purpose Designed/Built” boats it becomes evident they usually aren’t too competitive. I had hopes the Marbleheads would have worked to provide a “new life” for older designs, but they were fast only against another Marblehead. When raced against the Mini40/F-48’s they just weren’t that fast.
I would suspect similar for the RG-65 in a “modified monohull” form.
I am going to take my MultiONE design and drop it down to RG-65 size and see how well it will work. Again - just for fun right now, as down the road, there still should be a recognized multlihull option here in the US for those interested - but intimidated by the huge size of 1.2 and 2 Meter boats.
I was just thinkingof something thats cheap, easy to built with much off the shelf components. IE the build has to come up withthe pontoons, but everything else is therein the rg65 kit.
kinda of a one design tri…
of course a purpose built tri would be much faster than the rg based tri…but and two rg based tri’s competeing against on another…again it puts the race back int he skippers hand, not the designers… or theone with deep pockets…
Hi,
I was told by Peter Gernert, that he will publish the drawings for the DEPRONI (the RG-65 tri at rc-network: http://www.rc-network.de/forum/showthread.php?t=100558) soon. Moreover, he is just preparing the “next generation”. Based on the experiences with the DEPRONI he plans an ultra light-weight tri.
I agree with Dick that a tri based on a standard RG-hull will have no chance against such - how did you call it - “purpose built” tri
Multihulls have alway’s facinated me, I would build one, even design it. There is a reason, however, that multihulls havn’t caught on here in the us. I don’t know what it is, but we had a 36/600 multihull class years ago that just kinda faded away. I think that the best thing would be to do it similar to the footies, and do the racing on the web, with a set course, timed. We could even do a scaled up version of the footy internet course. This would allow the few scattered people around the us to have a community in which to share ideas and compare designs. I would disagree with the movable ballast thing, however, as this can create alot of complications that some people might be put off by. Try to keep is KISS! (keep it simple, stupid!) Have a max beam, length, mast height, and keel depth, or just a simple length, beam and overall height from bottom of keel to top of mast. No limits on sail area, no foils allowed. The only downside I can see to this would be the need for multiple rigs, to be competitive in various wind pressures.
As a more radical suggestion, what about limiting the material to wood, epoxy, and metal? No carbon fiber or fiberglass! Would keep cost down and keep it from turning into a carbon fiber playground. Also, 2 channel control max.
you could do a similar box rule, like the footy, call it the 123 1 foot deep, 2 feet wide 36" long… mast height 3’ main boom 2’ jib boom 1 foot no slots, no over hangs…
or better yet, use the existing rig from an existing class, vic, soling, or some other popular boat such that all folks have to do is build a boat, and swap out rigs…
This has me thinking, maybe I’ll take my old vic, and make a trimaran out of it…just for kicks… Of course I cringe at the very though of cutting up and putting holes in a perfectly good competitive boat…
I like the limitation on material… and channel
could be tri or cat proa…, ballast or not,
if I were to to take my vic and build and add two extra hulls and make it a tri… if i were to just remove the bulb from the keel would that provide enough lateral resistance…
Juts thinking out loud… I could modify my vic easy enough and still keep it class legal so long as I removed the pontoons prior to a Vic Race…
Some who are experienced in using composites, use it as means to keep thier own costs down. IE. raw materials in bulk. To eliminate them based on other’s expensive experiments, would not be fair. For example, I make some quick fiberglass laminate on a piece of smooth plexiglass, to save from buying some of the light / thin / sometimes pricy plywoods.
Sure Mark - as I recall, doesn’t the Vic “suffer” a bit from a too short stock keel? At around 25-30 inches in boat length, I would suggest a keel depth of about 10 inches as a starter. Once you get the modified boat moving, there will be less sideways slippage, the extra weight will be gone, and the increase in relative speed will be evident. You can begin to trim keel length as you find performance level of the boat.
Not sure of your beam attachment thoughts, but if you can … when the boat is in the bathtub without the keel, see if you can keep both float hulls just clear of the water by about 1/2 inch or so. That way when the boat does heel, you have reduced the surface drag of the windward hull/float. My only caution, is you should have a fast winch to dump power - and if it does go up on only the leeward float/hull, remember you have lost most if not all your rudder steering! [YIKES]
Once you get it on the water, you may find your stock sails are cut too full for apparent boat speed, and may want to go to a bit stiffer cloth for a flatter sail.
It won’t be the ultimate multihull, but it should give you a taste of speed potential. Also to start - attach a piece of foam to top of mast until you get the feel for the boat, as you have given up the lead “training wheels”.
vic keel is 7" from bottom of hull to bottom of bulb. so keel is about 6.5" long, but there is ample area to add on a keel, and if I am not mistaken the Ausies do make a longer vic keel
there is tons of deck space on the vic and some proper bending of some aluminum tubing could make it work…I think a few holes woudl need to be drilled into the deck, and the use of cotter pins to attache the pontoons so its ealit removable for “convential” sailing…
I just need to find a good plan for the pontoons.
Nigel
if carbon fiber is so cheap, why are all the carbon fiber footy kits $100 more (one which is $300 more) than the fiberglass, blow molded plastic and wooden counterparts…
I don’t discount your skill, and ability in working with composites, but there is a good investment and learning curve in doing it right… I think preformed/off theshelf composits are OK, as they are available readily, but when you start doing hulls, fins, ect…it gets pricey, quick…Yes I also understand that you made the choice to invest in the materials and time to learn and the equipment to do composite work so I do understand some of the cost…
Just thinking outloud and bouncing thinsg around…
fwiw I’d love one of your hulls or a 507 but both are a bit (way) out of my price range…
